DSM-5 Round up: April #3

Post #240 Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-2T2

“…Psychiatry has already reached far into our daily lives, and it’s not by virtue of the particulars of any given D.S.M. It’s because the A.P.A., a private guild, one with extensive ties to the drug industry, owns the naming rights to our pain. That so significant a public trust is in private hands, and on such questionable grounds, is what we ought to worry about.”
           The New Yorker, April 9, 2013

The Book of Woe

Gary Greenberg is a Connecticut psychotherapist, author of four books and cultivator of an impressive braid.

Greenberg’s new book The Book of Woe: The DSM and the Unmaking of Psychiatry on the politics and controversies surrounding the making of DSM is published by Blue Rider Press on May 2. Read an excerpt here.

Extracts from “Manufacturing Depression” (Harpers, May 2007), essays, articles and other writings can be read here. Media interviews and podcasts here.

Gary Greenberg blogs here.

Interview with Gary Greenberg:

The Atlantic

The Real Problems With Psychiatry

A psychotherapist contends that the DSM, psychiatry’s “bible” that defines all mental illness, is not scientific but a product of unscrupulous politics and bureaucracy.

“…take the damn thing away from them.”

Hope Reese | May 2, 2013

+++
DSM-5 Media Round up: April #3

Nature | News Feature

Nature Volume: 496, Pages: 416–418 Date published: (25 April 2013) DOI:doi:10.1038/496416a

Mental health: On the spectrum

Research suggests that mental illnesses lie along a spectrum — but the field’s latest diagnostic manual still splits them apart.

David Adam | April 24, 2013

p. 397 Editorial

+++

Globe and Mail (Canada)

When did life itself become a treatable mental disorder?

Patricia Pearson | Special to The Globe and Mail | April 27, 2013

+++

+++

Plos Open Access

Perspective doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1001544

Subgrouping the Autism “Spectrum”: Reflections on DSM-5

Meng-Chuan Lai, Michael V. Lombardo, Bhismadev Chakrabarti, Simon Baron-Cohen

+++

Monitor on Psychology (Organ of the American Psychological Association)

The Next DSM

A look at the major revisions of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, due out next month.

Rebecca A Clay | April 2013

+++

Psychology Today

Saving Normal

The International Reaction to DSM-5

Allen Frances, MD | April 23, 2013

For WPA/WHO survey of global usage of ICD-10 v DSM-5 see Presentation slides: Slides 17 and 18:
Revising the ICD Definition of Intellectual Disability: Implications and Recommendations March 19, 2013
Data from World Psychiatry. 2011 Jun;10(2):118-31.
The WPA-WHO Global Survey of Psychiatrists’ Attitudes Towards Mental Disorders Classification.
Reed GM, Mendonça Correia J, Esparza P, Saxena S, Maj M. Free full paper

+++

Huffington Post Allen Frances MD
Allen Frances MD, Professor Emeritus, Duke University | April 21, 2013

+++

Slide presentation David J Kupfer

Psychiatry Update – American College of Physicians | March 2, 2013

www.acponline.org/about_acp/chapters/va/13mtg/kupfer_psychiatryupdate.pptx

File Format: Microsoft Powerpoint .pptx

(Emerging options for DSM-5 Primary Care Version from Slide 18)

++

Psychiatric News | April 19, 2013
Volume 48 Number 8 page 5-5
10.1176/appi.pn.2013.4b14
American Psychiatric Association

Professional News

Gambling Disorder to Be Included in Addictions Chapter

Mark Moran | April 19, 2013

+++

Full paper PDF:

www.luc.edu/law/media/law/students/publications/llj/pdfs/hass.pdf

Could the American Psychiatric Association Cause You Headaches? The Dangerous Interaction between the DSM-5 and Employment Law

Douglas A. Hass | March 9, 2013

+++

Scientific American

New DSM-5 Ignores Biology of Mental Illness

The latest edition of psychiatry’s standard guidebook neglects the biology of mental illness. New research may change that

Ferris Jabr | April 2013

+++

UK Times

First, the good news: you’re not having a nervous breakdown

John Naish | April 16, 2013

Behind a paywall

+++

+++

Advertisements

DSM-5 Round up: April #2

DSM-5 Round up: April #2

Post #232 Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-2IU

Update at April 13:

Slate

Abnormal Is the New Normal

Why will half of the U.S. population have a diagnosable mental disorder?

Robin S Rosenberg | April 12, 2013

Via Patrick Landman @landman35635068

News of a forthcoming event about the “medicalization of childhood” and the consequences of DSM-5. The organizers belong to the STOP DSM international movement.

6-8 June, 2013  Palais Rouge, Buenos Aires, Agentina

and

Fundación Sociedades Complejas

La FUNDACION SOCIEDADES COMPLEJAS. PROYECTOS EN SALUD Y EDUCACION se instituye con el objeto de promover el desarrollo, la capacitación, la formación, la investigación y el perfeccionamiento continuo de todos aquellos profesionales de la salud, la educación y la cultura que trabajan con bebes, niñas…

See also guest editorial by Patrick Landman on Side Effects at Psychology Today

Why DSM-5 Concerns European Psychiatrists

A guest contributor from Paris explains why the manual’s power is misplaced

Published on March 18, 2013 by Christopher Lane, Ph.D. in Side Effects

Patrick Landman, Université de Paris VII

http://www.stop-dsm.org

+++

The New Yorker

The D.S.M. and the Nature of Disease

Gary Greenberg | April 9, 2013

…The D.S.M. has enormous impact on the public health. It determines which conditions insurers will cover, which drugs regulators will approve, which children will receive special-education services, and which criminal defendants will be able to stand trial and, in some cases, how they will be sentenced. Psychiatry has already reached far into our daily lives, and it’s not by virtue of the particulars of any given D.S.M. It’s because the A.P.A., a private guild, one with extensive ties to the drug industry, owns the naming rights to our pain. That so significant a public trust is in private hands, and on such questionable grounds, is what we ought to worry about.

Read more of this post

DSM-5 Round up: April #1

DSM-5 Round up: April #1

Post #231 Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-2In

New York Post

A disease called ‘childhood’

Do 1 in 5 NYC preteens really suffer a mental woe? A psychiatry expert argues we’re overdiagnosing —and overmedicating — our kids

Allen Frances MD | March 30, 2013

Last week, The Post reported that more than 145,000 city children struggle with mental illness or other emotional problems. That estimate, courtesy of New York’s Health Department, equals an amazing 1 in 5 kids. Could that possibly be true?

+++
BBC Radio 4

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01rl1q8

Medicalising Grief

Will the book that classifies mental illness lead to the medicalisation of grief?

Presented by Matthew Hill. Featuring Drs Jerome Wakefield, Lisa Cosgrove, Allen Frances (Chaired the Task Force for DSM-IV), Joanne Cacciatore and Gary Greenberg.

Available to listen again for the next 7 days online.

Counseling Today ACA podcasts help counselors prepare for DSM-5

Heather Rudow | March 27, 2013

Rebecca Daniel-Burke, ACA’s [American Counseling Association]director of professional projects and staff liaison to ACA’s DSM-5 Task Force, hosts the podcast series, which offers counselors a way to prepare for and understand potential changes. Daniel-Burke spoke with K. Dayle Jones for the first, 38-minute podcast, and Jason King for the second, which is 52 minutes long and available for CE credit…

+++

The New York Times invited readers to respond for a dialogue about psychiatric diagnoses and the forthcoming DSM-5. The dialogue was initiated by a letter from Ronald Pies, which concludes “‘Diagnosis’ means knowing the difference between one condition and another. For many patients, learning the name of their disorder may relieve years of anxious uncertainty. So long as diagnosis is carried out carefully and respectfully, it may be eminently humanizing. Indeed, diagnosis remains the gateway to psychiatry’s pre-eminent goal of relieving the patient’s suffering.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/20/opinion/invitation-to-a-dialogue-psychiatric-diagnoses.html

Ronald Pies

Controversy surrounding the soon-to-be-released fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, or DSM-5 — often called “psychiatry’s bible” — has cast a harsh light on psychiatric diagnosis. For psychiatry’s more radical critics, psychiatric diagnoses are merely “myths” or “socially constructed labels.” But even many who accept the reality of, say, major depression argue that current psychiatric diagnoses often “stigmatize” or “dehumanize” people struggling with ordinary grief, stress or anxiety…

Published responses:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/24/opinion/sunday/sunday-dialogue-defining-mental-illness.html

Letters
Sunday Dialogue: Defining Mental Illness

Response to Letters from Ronald Pies via Psychiatric Times

http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/blog/pies/content/article/10168/2135248

Diagnosis and its Discontents: The DSM Debate Continues

Ronald W. Pies, MD | 29 March 2013

Dr Pies is Editor-in-Chief Emeritus of Psychiatric Times, and a professor in the psychiatry departments of SUNY Upstate Medical University and Tufts University School of Medicine. He is the author of The Judaic Foundations of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy; a collection of short stories, Ziprin’s Ghost; and, most recently, a poetry chapbook, The Heart Broken Open. His most recent book is The Three-Petalled Rose: How the Synthesis of Judaism, Buddhism, and Stoicism Can Create a Healthy, Fulfilled and Flourishing Life (iUniverse: 2013).

“As to diseases, make a habit of two things—to help, or at least to do no harm.”
–Hippocrates, Epidemics, in Hippocrates, trans. W. H. S. Jones (1923), Vol. I, 165 [italics added]

“An agnostic is someone who doesn’t know, and di– is a Greek prefix meaning “two.” So “diagnostic” means someone who doesn’t know twice as much as an agnostic doesn’t know.”
–Walt Kelly, Pogo

A funny thing happened to me on the way to the New York Times “Sunday Dialogue” —I made myself unclear.¹ This is not supposed to happen to careful writers, or to those of us who flatter ourselves with that honorific. So what went wrong?

In brief, I greatly underestimated the public’s strong identification of psychiatric diagnosis with the categorical approach of the recent DSMs. But whereas my letter to the Times was indeed occasioned by DSM-5’s release in May, my argument in defense of psychiatric diagnosis was not a testimonial in favor of any one type of diagnostic scheme—categorical, dimensional, prototypical² or otherwise…

http://www.meactionuk.org.uk/The-Achilles-Heel.htm

Stephen Ralph | March 30, 2013

In recent years I have been considering the reliability of the whole “CFS/ME” diagnostic process.

From personal experience I have encountered numerous doctors who failed to possess the detailed specialist knowledge they needed to make a diagnosis of Behçet’s disease at both GP and specialist level.

From personal experience I have learned that standard blood tests or even CT/MRI scans or indeed other diagnostic tests such as endoscopy can and do fail to detect a complex clinical disease present in a patient.

I have no doubt that there is a diagnostic black hole between the insufficient knowledge of the doctor and pathologies that are not detectable by the basic tests they choose to request which produce negative results they then choose to rely on.

The diagnoses of “CFS/ME” and now Somatic Symptom Disorder have in my view been deployed by liaison psychiatry to exploit that black hole.

Read more of this post

Pity the poor American Psychiatric Association, Parts 1 and 2: Gary Greenberg

Pity the poor American Psychiatric Association, Parts 1 and 2: Gary Greenberg

Post #124 Shortlink: http://wp.me/pKrrB-1Ca

On January 03, I reported that the Licensing and Permissions department of American Psychiatric Publishing, A Division of American Psychiatric Association, served me with two “cease and desist” letters, just before Christmas, claiming use of the registered trademark DSM 5 within my site’s subdomain name was improper, in violation of United States Trademark Law, and that my unauthorized actions may subject me to contributory infringement liability including increased damages for wilful infringement.

I was requested to immediately cease and desist any and all use of the DSM 5 mark and that the DSM 5 mark is removed from the domain name http://dsm5watch.wordpress.com/.

Whether American Psychiatric Publishing might be considered to have a case against me or whether the use of the DSM 5 mark within my subdomain name might be found by a court to be legitimate under “fair use” – given that my site is non commercial, carries a clear disclaimer, with no intent to confuse, mislead or misrepresent my relationship with the APA or its publishing arm – I elected to change the site’s URL the following day.

The second letter demanded that I cease and desist immediately any and all use of the “DSM 5 mark” in the domain names of three additional internet platforms.

I do not own any of these three platforms or have any responsibility for them.

Evidently American Psychiatric Publishing’s Licensing and Permissions department omitted to establish ownership before issuing me with “cease and desist” demands and threats of legal action, on behalf of the American Psychiatric Association. I have received no apology nor explanation for their error. (I am not in a position to disclose the content of the second “cease and desist” letter since it relates to matters concerning a third party.)

Allen Frances, MD, professor emeritus at Duke, chaired the Task Force that had oversight of the development of DSM-IV and has been a fierce critic of the revision process towards the forthcoming edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, DSM-5. On Tuesday, Frances publicly supported my position in a commentary published on his DSM5 in Distress blog, hosted at Psychology Today.

Other blogging psychiatrists, allied mental health professionals and the author, Gary Greenberg, are supporting Frances in what they see as a heavy-handed, arrogant, bizarre and politically damaging move on the part of American Psychiatric Publishing’s Licensing and Permissions department in exercising trademark rights and making threats of legal action against a non commercial, responsible UK patient advocate who provides information and publishes commentary around the revision of two internationally used classification systems.

Commentaries from bloggers are being collated in this post:

Media coverage: American Psychiatric Association (APA) ”cease and desist” v DSM-5 Watch website; Legal information and resources for bloggers and site owners

Today, Gary Greenberg, author of Manufacturing Depression, and Inside the Battle to Define Mental Illness, Wired, December 27, 2010, has published a two part article on his website.

Read Part 1 here:

Pity the poor American Psychiatric Association, Part 1

Read Part Two, here, or published below, with the author’s permission:

Pity the American Psychiatric Association, Part 2

Gary Greenberg Blog

http://www.garygreenbergonline.com/

January 5th, 2012

In the last installment, we found out that the APA is trying to thread a camel through the eye of a needle. In their own view, they have to revise the DSM. To do this, they have to address the reification problem – i.e., that many of us, civilians and clinicians alike, have taken the DSM too seriously and treated the disorders it lists as actual diseases rather than fictive placeholders. To address it, they have to admit that it is a problem, and that they don’t have a solution. They have to fix the plane while it is airborne, but they don’t have the tools or the knowhow to do so, and the more it becomes clear that the plane is in trouble, and the more the mechanics are swearing and banging belowdecks, the more likely it is that the passengers will find out and start asking for a quick landing and a voucher on another airline.

So it is very important to try to keep the passengers in the dark as long as possible. Or, to put it another way, the APA has a product to protect, and the best way to do that, from a corporation’s point of view, is to control the narrative, as the pundits say, about the DSM.

Now, even before the recent events, which I’ll get to in a second, I knew this, because last year I wrote an article about the DSM revision for Wired about the argument between Allen Frances and Michael First, the major players in the DSM-IV revision, and Darrel Regier and David Kupfer, their counterparts on DSM-5. The article was no great shakes, just your usual lunchbucket magazine piece, fair and balanced and bland and forgettable as a soy hot dog with French’s mustard on it. I think Frances came out a little better, but that’s because I think he’s closer to the truth of the matter, and, as one of his colleagues has reminded me about a million times, he’s retired, so he can afford to speak truth to power. And the APA sounded at least reasonable in its willingness to acknowledge that the DSM is more provisional than it is generally made out to be.

Anyway, the forgettable magazine piece is in the process of becoming a book which will probably also be forgettable. And so I went back to my transcripts of conversations with the APA/DSM folks and of course found out all the questions I’d failed to ask and the points I’d failed to get clarified. So I emailed the APA pr apparatchicks and asked them to enlighten me. When exactly did the APA stop taking money from the drug companies for their educational programs, and how exactly was the embargo worded? And did I understand Regier correctly about a highly technical point that I won’t bore you with.

Here’s what I got back for a response.

Dear Gary,

We have received several requests from you for access to APA experts and positions on issues related to the DSM for the book you’re writing. I wanted you to know that we will not be working with you on this project. Last year we gave you free access to several of our officers and DSM experts for the article you wrote for Wired. In spite of the fact that we went to considerable lengths to work with you, the article you produced was deeply negative and biased toward the APA. Because of this track record, we are not interested in working with you further as we have no reason to expect that we would be treated any more fairly in your book than we were in the Wired article.

Now, why the APA would want to hand me such first-rate evidence of its own paranoia – and spare me having to listen to their talking points, not to mention preemptively decline to have a crack at responding to my book– is beyond me. It’s as incomprehensible as the letter itself, or at least the part where they complain that I was “biased toward” them. But I gather they think that they will make it harder for me to write my book, that maybe if they don’t cooperate I won’t do it. It is in any event evidence of an awfully thin skin, and of a bunker mentality. More disturbingly, it is evidence that they don’t really take their public trust too seriously. Especially when you contrast this to the National institutes of Mental Health, and its director Tom Insel, of whose work I’ve been much more directly critical, and who took the time to read it, and who still bent over backwards to get me an hour of face time that was cordial and fascinating. It’s enough to make you a fan of the government.

So to the recent events. Suzy Chapman is a patient advocate from the UK. Her website was an excellent compendium of information, archival material, reports, and, yes, criticism of the DSM-5. I have been using it in my research and admiring her tenacity and her fairmindedness. She has opinions but they are way in the background and neither shrill nor strident.

Chapman called her website DSM-5 and ICD Watch: Monitoring the Development of DSM-5, ICD-11 and ICD-10-CM. (The ICD’s are diagnostic systems run by the World Health Organization, and they are also under revision), and her subdomain name was

http://dsm5watch.wordpress.com

She also put in a disclaimer, made it clear that she had nothing to do with APA, that she wasn’t dispensing medical, legal, or technical advice. But that didn’t stop the APA from going after her. Not long after they got their DSM-5 trademark approved, and right before Christmas, they sent her this nice holiday card, which she’s kindly allowed me to post here, with her redactions.

Name: Redacted
Email: Redacted
Message: December 22, 2011

Suzy Chapman

http://dsm5watch.wordpress.com/

RE: DSM 5 Trademark Violation

Dear Ms. Chapman:
It has come to our attention that the website http://dsm5watch.wordpress.com/ is infringing upon the American Psychiatric Association’s trademark DSM 5 (serial number 85161695) and is in violation of federal law by using it as a domain name.

According to our records, the American Psychiatric Association has not authorized this use of the DSM 5 trademark. Consequently, this use of the DSM 5 mark is improper and is in violation of United States Trademark Law. Your unauthorized actions may subject you to contributory infringement liability including increased damages for willful infringement. We request that you immediately cease and desist any and all use of the DSM 5 mark. Furthermore, we request that the DSM 5 mark is removed from the domain name http://dsm5watch.wordpress.com/ . The American Psychiatric Association has a good-faith belief that the above-identified website’s use of the DSM 5 name and marks is not authorized by the American Psychiatric Association, its agents, or the law. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct and that I am authorized to act on behalf of the American Psychiatric Association.

Please confirm, within the next ten (10) days of the date of this letter, that you will stop using our trademark in http://dsm5watch.wordpress.com/ , and provide documentation confirming that you have. Any further use will be considered an infringement.

Thank you for your prompt cooperation in resolving this issue.

Very truly yours,

[Redacted]
Licensing and Permissions Manager American Psychiatric Publishing, A Division of American Psychiatric Association
1000 Wilson Boulevard Suite 1825 Arlington, VA 22209
E-mail: Redacted

Chapman, not in a position to fight, complied almost immediately. Her website is now available at

https://dxrevisionwatch.wordpress.com/

where you can also read about this kerfuffle in more detail.

Why the APA would make themselves into a Goliath is not clear to me. The DSM offers Paranoid Personality Disorder, but this episode makes me wish Frances hadn’t shied away from his proposal for a Self-Defeating Personality Disorder. Because it is not clear to me how they win this one. Not that I really care, at least not about the APA’s fortunes, but are they trying to prove Frances right about his recent, somewhat incendiary, claim that the APA no longer deserves the DSM franchise?

I did ask one of the APA’s trustees about this. He wrote:

As for whether the intellectual property angle was driving them to crush the lady in Great Britain or their wanting to crush her because she was being critical, I think when the history is finally known, it will be the former. Maybe we can think of someone using “DSM-5″ who is friendly and note the reaction.

I do like this idea of conducting an experiment. And he may well be correct, that this is the APA worrying about its intellectual property rather than just trying to make Suzy Chapman miserable or squash dissent. Will they go after the sites that have popped up predictably in the wake of publicity of their enforcement action, like www.dsm5sucks.com and the twitter account @dsm5nonsense (whose owner dares the APA to come after them)? But in the meantime, this only proves two points:

First, this organization is at least terribly tone deaf. Going after Suzy Chapman is sort of like Lowe’s yanking its ads from a tv show depicting Muslims as normal people – a hugely blunderous action taken to please a tiny constituency, which can’t possibly earn them anything but scorn and opprobrium. Either they don’t know how they come off or they don’t care. Either way, it’s pretty disturbingly arrogant behavior for an organization that has so much to say about how public money is spent.

Second, the APA is a corporation that, like any other, will do anything to protect itself from harm, real or imagined. And it spends a lot of time imagining dangers. That’s probably because it knows its primary product – the DSM, which accounts for ten percent of its income and a great deal of its clout – is faulty, and it knows that it doesn’t quite know how to fix it without risking making it much much worse.

[Ends]

Legal information and resources for bloggers and site owners:

1] Wipedia article: Cease and desist
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cease_and_desist

2] Wipedia article: Strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_lawsuit_against_public_participation

3] Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_Frontier_Foundation
http://www.eff.org/

EFF Bloggers’ Rights
https://www.eff.org/bloggers

EFF Legal Guide for Bloggers
https://www.eff.org/issues/bloggers/legal

4] Chilling Effects
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilling_Effects_(group)
http://chillingeffects.org/

5] U.S. Trademark Law, Rules of Practice & Federal Statutes, U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, November 2011 http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/law/tmlaw.pdf

%d bloggers like this: